Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Understand the statutory time limits for issuing income-tax notices and completing assessments under the Income-tax Act. The guide...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
Income Tax : Section 154 permits rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in assessment orders, intimations, and TDS/TCS processing s...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : It has been observed that in many cases an assessee may wish to make a claim which was not made in the return of income filed unde...
Income Tax : We have attached a file in excel format. The file contains the format of various details which normally assessing officer asks As...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held legal services are not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and directed partner-wise DTAA examination. FTS addition was de...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat held that delayed filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and remanded the matter after directing the AO to consider t...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Totgar's ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The Tribunal ruled that only 8% of disputed purchases could be added where the assessee had disclosed corresponding sales and made payments through banking channels. Entire purchase disallowance was held to distort true business income.
The Tribunal deleted penalty levied on society charges and depreciation disallowances after finding that the claims were fully disclosed in books and audited financial statements. It held that ad hoc disallowances alone cannot trigger concealment penalty.
The Tribunal ruled that bonus shares sold after being held for more than 12 months were taxable as exempt long-term capital gains and not business income. The assessees treatment of bonus shares as investments was accepted.
ITAT Bangalore held that an appeal filed without verification by the authorized Principal Officer was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed liberty to file a properly verified appeal with condonation request, if necessary.
Mumbai ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band introduced under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is curative and retrospective in nature. The Tribunal deleted addition arising from stamp duty valuation difference as the variation was only 7.44%.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 69A cannot be invoked where loan transactions are fully routed through banking channels and recorded in regular books of account. The Tribunal deleted the addition despite Revenue alleging the transactions were accommodation entries based on third-party search material.
The Bangalore ITAT ruled that once substantive addition under Section 2(22)(e) is sustained in the managing partners case, the corresponding protective addition in the firm’s hands must be deleted. The ruling clarifies that protective assessments are only temporary safeguards.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that co-operative banks qualify as co-operative societies for purposes of Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal allowed deduction on interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks following Gujarat High Court rulings.
The Delhi High Court set aside an assessment order after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s reply filed on the same date as the order. The Court held that this violated principles of natural justice.
The ITAT held that credits received in the assessee’s bank account were repayments of earlier advances and not unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the transactions were supported by bank records and financial documents.
